United States District Court, C.D. California
For Michael Angelo Tellez, Plaintiff: Lawrence D Rohlfing, LEAD ATTORNEY, Law Offices of Lawrence D Rohlfing, Santa Fe Springs, CA.
For Michael J Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant: Scott J Borrowman, LEAD ATTORNEY, Social Security Administration, U.S. Attorneys Office - U.S. Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA; Assistant U.S. Attorney LA-CV, Office of U.S. Attorney, Civil Division, Los Angeles, CA; Assistant U.S. Attorney LA-SSA, Office of the General Counsel for Social Security Adm., San Francisco, CA.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
FREDERICK F. MUMM, United States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff brings this action seeking to overturn the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying his application for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income benefits. The parties consented, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. Pursuant to the September 10, 2012 Case Management Order, on June 20, 2013, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation (" JS") detailing each party's arguments and authorities. The Court has reviewed the JS and the administrative record (" AR"), filed by defendant on March 18, 2013. For the reasons stated below, the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.
On or about March 6, 2009, plaintiff applied for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income benefits. (AR 157-62.) The applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. (AR 99-104, 105-11.) Plaintiff requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (" ALJ"). (AR 114-16.) ALJ Michael J. Kopicki held a hearing on October 25, 2010. (AR 66-92.) Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified at the hearing. (Id.) On March 14, 2011, the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits. (AR 32-42.) Plaintiff sought review of the decision before the Social Security Administration Appeals Council. (AR 155-56.) The Council denied the request for review on June 12, 2012. (AR 5-10.)
Plaintiff filed the complaint herein on September 4, 2012.
Plaintiff raises two issues:
1. Whether the ALJ properly considered plaintiff's mental limitations.
2. Whether the ALJ erred in relying on the vocational expert's testimony.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court reviews the Commissioner's decision to determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the proper legal standards were applied. DeLorme v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 841, 846 (9th Cir. 1991). Substantial evidence means " more than a mere scintilla" but less than a preponderance. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971); Desrosiers v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 846 F.2d 573, 575-76 (9th Cir. 1988). Substantial evidence is " such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401. This Court must review the record as a whole and consider adverse as well as supporting evidence. Green v. Heckler, 803 F.2d 528, 529-30 ...